Full reference for editorial "Towards synthesis of biology and semiotics"

Here´s the reference for the first editorial I´ve co-authored:

Alexei Sharov, Timo Maran and Morten Tønnessen 2015. Towards Synthesis of Biology and Semiotics. Editorial. Biosemiotics 8(1): 1–7. Published online April 4th 2015 (DOI: 10.1007/s12304-015-9239-y).

Biosemiotics 8(1) published - two articles freely available online

Biosemiotics volume 8, issue 1 has now been published, according to alerts from the publisher, Springer. This is the second issue Alexei Sharov, Timo Maran and I have edited (which means I have been involved in decision-making and editing of all articles).

Contents:

Editorial
Towards Synthesis of Biology and Semiotics
Alexei Sharov, Timo Maran, Morten Tønnessen Pages 1-7 

Do They Speak Language?
Lucie Čadková Pages 9-27 

Language Evolution: Why Hockett’s Design Features are a Non-Starter
Sławomir Wacewicz, Przemysław Żywiczyński Pages 29-46 

Why Language Evolution Needs Memory: Systems and Ecological Approaches
Anton V. Sukhoverkhov, Carol A. Fowler Pages 47-65 

Hominin Language Development: A New Method of Archaeological Assessment
James Cole Pages 67-90 

Evolution of signs, organisms and artifacts as phases of concrete generalization
Eliseo Fernández Pages 91-102 

Protosemiosis: Agency with Reduced Representation Capacity
Alexei A. Sharov, Tommi Vehkavaara Pages 103-123 

Review
The Biosemiotic Glossary Project: Agent, Agency
Morten Tønnessen Pages 125-143 

Book review
Thinking Merleau-Ponty Forward / Review of Louise Westling (2014). The Logos of the Living World: Merleau-Ponty, Animals, and Language
W. John Coletta Pages 145-151

First Biosemiotics editorial published online - "Towards Synthesis of Biology and Semiotics"

The first editorial by Alexei Sharov, Timo Maran and myself was published online in Biosemiotics on April 4th (full text here). Reference:

— 2015b, with Alexei Sharov and Timo Maran. Towards Synthesis of Biology and Semiotics. Editorial. Biosemiotics 8(1). Published online April 4th 2015 (DOI: 10.1007/s12304-015-9239-y).

Excerpt:

Although some scholars consider biosemiotics predominantly as a philosophy, particularly within philosophy of biology/science, we would like to emphasize its scientific and often practical orientation. Biosemiotics can contribute to natural science, applied science and philosophy alike. Our scientific outlook does not mean, however, that we support mechanistic methodology, which currently dominates in physics, chemistry, and even in molecular biology. We believe that traditional approaches in science associated with studies of passive, isolated systems, as in physics and chemistry, should be complemented by a distinctively different study of complex agents such as living organisms and their components, people, human organizations, and technological artifacts. The radically different nature of these complex phenomena requires a substantial shift in scientific methodology. Biosemiotics considers the existence of entities that are not directly accessible for investigation (e.g., meaning, agency, goals, internal representations). It therefore seeks to identify or develop indirect methods that can help to evaluate these entities, and supports systematic approaches for their analysis. These efforts should be based on diverse heuristics, handling of multiple hypotheses, and complementarity of different descriptions as exemplified by the brief overview of papers presented in this issue (see below).